MrsBlue is home from work today, which should have provided a perfect opportunity to continue the discussion of whether to pop an air conditioner into one of the windows in the living room. That is, of course, if it wasn't for the rainstorm that has taken the local temperature down to 66°F at the moment, which I'm pretty sure is not going to help my argument. As usual, the key to life is timing.

F'ed up situation, but I would wait for all the available facts before drawing any specific conclusions.

Just speculating. One thing I can say definitely is that everyone in the theater, armed or not, was at a distinct disadvantage just knowing from experience the time it takes for one's brain to register that what is happening is really in fact happening. We all are aware that something like this can always happen (which is why those of us who go armed do so), but we don't walk around on edge like a tightened coil waiting to spring into action (Well, I don't anyway). This dude knew what he was about - he already had the drop on everyone by the element sheer surprise and the gas especially would make an already chaotic situation even more crazy, further limiting the chance that anyone in there would have decided to try and do anything other than make a mad dash for safety. The way this went down there was going to be a high body count regardless, which is probably why he chose the crowded movie theater setting in the first place.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Considering the type of firepower this nutjob showed up with, frankly I'm amazed the number of dead wasn't over 100. Given how everyone is packed into a theater like sardines when it's at full capacity and how long it would take to get that many people out the exits in the 4 corners of the theater it is amazing that the number wasn't far more horrific than it already is. Consider that the gunman in the Norway massacre killed over 70 souls outside in an open space when the people were less densely packed together. Apologies for the dark line of morbid contemplation, but I have always been one to over-analyze I guess.

And if the reports that the guy was wearing military grade body armor from head to toe are true, it wouldn't have mattered if everyone in the theater was packing - nothing but a lucky shot between the armor would have fazed this guy. Remember the high profile old west-style shootout between the police and the bank robbers in California several years back? They had body armor and basically shrugged off the rounds from the policemen's sidearms. Incidentally, let me point out that the police there at the time were under what amounts to an assault weapons ban themselves- none of them were allowed to carry anything more powerful than a 12 gage shotgun in their cruisers, leaving them badly outgunned when perps commit who don't pay attention to laws that law-abiding citizens (and cavil servants) are beholden to come along. An assault weapons ban will only leave the criminals as the only ones with them. Perhaps a ban would have made this individual less likely to have obtained his AR-15 in time or at all, but given that he was clearly set on his path for mass murder, that only would have caused him to seek alternate perhaps even more deadly alternatives. Craziest will always find a way to perpetrate their evil.

This comment was edited on Jul 22, 2012, 17:05.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Fang wrote on Jul 22, 2012, 10:34:This is Colorado. There were probably 10-20 other guns in the crowd. And every single one choose to run.

It's not a question of should there be more guns for people. It's a question of whether we should reinstitute the assaut weapons ban. Then at least the law abiding citizens have a chance to stand up to someone like this. No way will someone armed with a small pistol go up against a guy with an assault rifle.

Take away the assault weapons and they'll just switch to IEDs, ask Israel- they only let .gov folks carry guns although there is the general draft into the IDF.

They may switch to IEDs soon anyway and then YOU will want to carry a rifle with you to go grocery shopping if you have any survival instincts in you.

This country has a major balkinization problem and social (familial) erosion problem that won't be solved by gun bans.

As for this particular guy Holmes- there is another student from his PHD program that is missing and is a person of interest in the investigation. There is a standing concern that someone let Holmes into the theater from the inside. This is far from over.

While you're looking into this go look up why no one in the media talks about Jared Laughner anymore- it's telling.

IMO he attacked Rep. Giffords and her constituents because he was not only crazed, but because left wing ideology had replaced his personality with something cold and judgmental. Feel free to replace left with right, it doesn't matter really- but people with borderline personalities are just feeling the strain in this country more keenly than people with more mental constitution.

This is Colorado. There were probably 10-20 other guns in the crowd. And every single one choose to run.

It's not a question of should there be more guns for people. It's a question of whether we should reinstitute the assaut weapons ban. Then at least the law abiding citizens have a chance to stand up to someone like this. No way will someone armed with a small pistol go up against a guy with an assault rifle.

Mr. Tact wrote on Jul 21, 2012, 08:25:I'm not saying it will or should go this way legally, but on some level the shooter is clearly insane. No same person purposely goes to a movie and kills a dozen people and wounds dozens more. Given that, I don't see how it can be used properly as an example for or against anything.

One can make that argument about ANY killer then... there's obviously something "wrong" with a person that would kill someone for little-to-no reason. Or pedophiles for that matter. Or really, just about any violent crime that wasn't to "get away" with something else (robbery, etc). Having a mental issue or abnormal behavior doesn't immediately give you the legal insanity defense.

I believe the measuring stick is: if the person knew what was going on, and understood the immediate consequences of his actions (dead people, injured people, etc), and was based in reality (not hallucinating / thinking he was shooting Zombies / etc).

If he honestly thought he was saving the world from Pod People an was doing the world a favor... then he'd skate on insanity.

If he thought it was a message from god, then he could probably skate.

If he was mentally handicapped and was convinced "this would make him cool" then he'd skate, but the people that forced his hand wouldn't.

If it just wanted to kill them to make sure "The Avengers" stayed the number 1 summer flick... then as demented as that is, I don't think it's grounds for insanity.

If he just wanted to make a name for himself as a large-count spree killer, then it wouldn't be grounds.

I'm not saying he WAS legally sane... just that doing something the public would think is crazy doesn't necessarily mean the suspect is legally insane.

-

This comment was edited on Jul 21, 2012, 11:48.

"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -Fry, Futurama

I'm not saying it will or should go this way legally, but on some level the shooter is clearly insane. No same person purposely goes to a movie and kills a dozen people and wounds dozens more. Given that, I don't see how it can be used properly as an example for or against anything.

Apparently the father of the couple that brought their 4 year old and 4 month old to the showing chose to do a runner rather than try and save his family. I read on one of the reports that he jumped over the balcony because he was concerned his infant son's crying would have alerted the gunman to his position.

Like the article says though, it gets better, because after having escaped, he apparently just drove away from the scene. As you do.

What's even more amusing is that, at the hospital, he proposed to her and she said yes.

Cutter wrote on Jul 21, 2012, 00:22:It's one thing to be fixated on violence, another to shoot up a place.

And my statement still stands. We're not talking about a mugging or something, but a theater with a few hundred people in a dark room freaking out in the midst of teargas, smoke and automatic gun fire. Do you really want to trust that if 20 of those people are carrying guns they're going to be cool as SEALS and ignore the chaos around them to hunt down the gunman or more likely just whip out a gun and shoot anything that looks like a potential threat to them? Thanks, but I'll take my chances on running or hiding in that case.

Cutter is right. I am a licensed carrier and carry my weapon wherever I'm legally allowed to (including movie theaters), but that does not mean I am obligated or even allowed to whip it out and start shooting like John Wayne in every possible situation. Be a licensed carrier is a big responsibility; you have to be able to use sound judgement and discretion as readily and rapidly as you are to use your Glock.

In the case of the movie theater incident in Colorado, before doing anything I probably would have had to avoided shitting myself out of fear. Then, most likely flight or fight mode decision time kicks in. Assuming I hadn't just run in terror, or wasn't allowed to by the circumstances I would have assessed the situation as to whether 1) I had a reasonably good chance to save my life and/or the lives of others by using my firearm, and 2) I felt I had a good chance to safely isolate the dangerous individual or individuals without putting the lives of innocents in even more danger than they already were. That sounds easy enough when you sit and contemplate it under normal conditions, but in truth it's a pretty tall order when such a chaotic situation as I'm sure the Colorado incident was suddenly arises out of nowhere and you are forced to make split second decisions. Given the details I am aware of in this particular incident, I think it's very likely that I would have left my gun holstered and tried to make a safe exit. Not assured; given a clear shot I would certainly at least have tried to stop the killings if possible, but it's not like I would have been playing Hollywood cop running through the theater looking for a showdown with the bad guy.

As to whether I should be allowed to carry or not, I'll leave that to others to bicker over. As it stands right now, I am, and I do. And I take the responsibility to do so VERY seriously. I bet right now George Zimmerman was wishing he had as well, but that is another discussion.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

So this is not a conclusive case against armed citizens any more than it is an affirmation thereof.

Actually the problem was an armed citizen killed twelve people in a movie theater. So it's a pretty clear case against armed citizens.

No opposing armed citizens to meet the lone offender- so no.

The idea that a society or government can create a condition of zero armed citizens is preposterous as well.

Governments that propose to disarm all their citizens always end up mass murdering them periodically anyway. Or they even mass murder less armed citizens. Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Trail of Tears, Lodz, Ukraine, Chicoms, etc. etc. etc.

At least our way more people get an individual choice to run or fight.

Cutter wrote on Jul 21, 2012, 00:22:It's one thing to be fixated on violence, another to shoot up a place.

And my statement still stands. We're not talking about a mugging or something, but a theater with a few hundred people in a dark room freaking out in the midst of teargas, smoke and automatic gun fire. Do you really want to trust that if 20 of those people are carrying guns they're going to be cool as SEALS and ignore the chaos around them to hunt down the gunman or more likely just whip out a gun and shoot anything that looks like a potential threat to them? Thanks, but I'll take my chances on running or hiding in that case.

And you're welcome to. It's all coulda woulda shoulda at this point anyway.

So this is not a conclusive case against armed citizens any more than it is an affirmation thereof.

It's one thing to be fixated on violence, another to shoot up a place.

And my statement still stands. We're not talking about a mugging or something, but a theater with a few hundred people in a dark room freaking out in the midst of teargas, smoke and automatic gun fire. Do you really want to trust that if 20 of those people are carrying guns they're going to be cool as SEALS and ignore the chaos around them to hunt down the gunman or more likely just whip out a gun and shoot anything that looks like a potential threat to them? Thanks, but I'll take my chances on running or hiding in that case.

"You can check your anatomy all you want, and even though there may be normal variation, when it comes right down to it, this far inside the head it all looks the same. No, no, no, don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."

Cutter wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 20:50:I love the comments from the gun nuts saying nothing like this would occur if everyone else was armed. Oh yeah, that's exactly what I want in a dark theater of panicked people running around, everyone whipping out Glocks and shooting at anything that moves. Yeah, I could see how that'd work out well for everyone.

I guess the TSA will now be coming to America's theaters, theme parks and school next.

And of course then they have to go after the religious angle, 'Why did this happen?' Um, maybe because some people just snap. None of us are that far off from it. That's all insanity is, just saying yes to the wrong impulse. All it takes is the right set of conditions before someone goes looney tunes.

The guy's mom knew he was a nutcase with a fixation on violence for some time now. You want a reason? Ask her. All the other media hype is just that.

As for guns, it's entirely possible that there weren't any others in the theater. The service people there have been banned from carrying during leave by our current President. OTOH if you want several documented instances of concealed carry holders stopping shootings it won't take long to find them. Nothing this big stopped yet though because thankfully it doesn't happen all that often.

Anyhow, all of us that got in a car today had a much better chance of dying horribly in traffic than running into a homicidal maniac, so I'm not going to worry too much about this unless it happens a lot more often.

Sepharo wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 19:03:I read a "how dare you" article just on the side story of the 3 month old in the theater... Apparently babies will sleep right through a loud movie and we're not allowed to criticize parents for taking an entertainment break while their baby sleeps.

Whomever wrote that article is an idiot. Even if the baby would sleep through the noise, sleep deprivation isn't the point. The damage caused to the still developing infant ear drum during pre-adolescent growth by loud noises of any kind is the point. It is for that reason that they carry small ear muffs that look like headphones at baby stores. (alternatively search them out on Amazon) Remember when the Saints won the Super Bowl and Drew Brees was accepting the trophy, wife and baby next to him? If you can find the video on Youtube, or you have a really good memory, you might notice a set on his kids ears. It wasn't because the baby had been listening to the play-by-play of the game. It was to protect the kid's ears in all that noise at the Superdome. With that in mind, it is entirely possible that the 3month old infant at this particular movie did in fact have a pair of said muffs. Just saying....I mean, it isn't like that would be a detail most reports would focus on.

Protip for that author and any sympathizers: If you can't let go of the movie theater and concerts long enough for the kid to at least get old enough to use a baby sitter, perhaps you aren't ready for parenthood. Parents need breaks, believe me I know, but parenting is as much about sacrifice as anything else on the planet. Perhaps more so.

I love the comments from the gun nuts saying nothing like this would occur if everyone else was armed. Oh yeah, that's exactly what I want in a dark theater of panicked people running around, everyone whipping out Glocks and shooting at anything that moves. Yeah, I could see how that'd work out well for everyone.

I guess the TSA will now be coming to America's theaters, theme parks and school next.

And of course then they have to go after the religious angle, 'Why did this happen?' Um, maybe because some people just snap. None of us are that far off from it. That's all insanity is, just saying yes to the wrong impulse. All it takes is the right set of conditions before someone goes looney tunes.

"You can check your anatomy all you want, and even though there may be normal variation, when it comes right down to it, this far inside the head it all looks the same. No, no, no, don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."